Quick Links

Oops!

For the past week there has been a lot of self-righteous posturing about health insurance coverage of abortions. Oh, no! We can't have "the American people" underwriting insurance coverage for legal procedures that might be performed with a fraction of their tax money. (Never mind that "the American people" have been forced to pay for many deaths at home and abroad about which they had no say.)

But it turns out that "the Republican people" have been underwriting just such coverage since 1991 as RNC group insurance provided for abortions. Until Thursday. Oops!

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It's like the president's not our boyfriend anymore," Joan McCarter, an editor at the Daily Kos website

ST, I am saying that there is great disparity between what some people say and what they do. Everybody who has made a major deal about the funding of abortions, and that would include Republicans, Democrats and all kinds of religious leaders, would do better to examine their own policies before they "cast stones". It's the old "glass house" principle, that says it's not smart to throw stones when you live in one.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

From the Ramussen report linked, abortion paid by healthcare is not a popular issue.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% believe any government-subsidized health care plan should be prohibited from covering abortion procedures. Thirteen percent (13%) believe such plans should be required to cover abortions, and 32% favor a more neutral approach with no requirements in either direction.

Among those who currently support passage of the legislation, 22% want a prohibition banning abortion coverage and 22% want a mandate requiring such coverage. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the plan’s supporters prefer the neutral approach, and nine percent (9%) are not sure.

Among those who oppose the plan, 72% favor a prohibition against coverage of abortions while five percent (5%) hold the opposite view. "

It's not just GOP members, but some of the Democrats representing more moderate and conservative districts.

Regardless, 2010 and 2012 candidates are cautious and are reviewing their voter's attitudes.

Whether abortion is a divisive issue or not isn't the point, heron. The point is that fighting abortion rights has raised a ton of money for the RNC, some of which money has gone to provide insurance coverage of abortions.

Where is the outrage among Republican contributors who call themselves "pro-life"?

Waiting.

Crickets.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

Both parties have voters who have different opinions on abortion. It may be a more conservative-liberal issue. But the GOP platform approves of abortion in certain circumstances, like when the mother's life is endangered or in rape and incest. But elective abortion used for birth control or as family planning is not approved.

Nice try, heron, but still not responsive to the point, which is that the Republican National Committee has touted its "pro-life" position in its fundraising and spent some of those funds on providing abortion coverage for RNC employees. That the RNC has hastily discontinued that coverage speaks to their understanding of what you apparently don't get.

Still waiting for the outrage from Republican contributors.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

No, volcanoman, it wasn't government money unless you count whatever subsidy the RNC might have received as an employer. But the point isn't about government funding. It's about the fact that so-called "pro-life" Republican donors have helped to pay for abortion coverage while at the same time vilifying anyone who claims even the right to choose one.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

this is all about "let he who hasn't sinned cast the first stone". And here I thought is was about the merits of using government funds to pay for elective abortions. For you it's actually about "leveling the playing field". "What's good for the sauce is good for the goose". "Hey, they did it so why can't I"?

As for me? I've never donated to the RNC. Had I done so and found out they were paying for abortion coverage with my money I wouldn't donate. And I won't donate (taxes or otherwise) for elective abortions because "it's a test of how I treat the least powerful among us".

And since we're on the quote thingy... "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".

Your first paragraph tells me that you don't get it either, volcanoman. Maybe that's intentional. I think there's a lot of intentional "not getting it" on these blogs. That's the old "don't respond: deflect or distract" tactic. Actually, if I were trying to make a point about level playing fields or geese and ganders or even sin, I would have said so. The point I am making is, as I said in my response to ST, "that there is great disparity between what some people say and what they do." Couldn't be simpler.

I take it that you are not in favor of abortion rights. I hope though that your last quote (about teaching fishing rather than giving fish) indicates a willingness to fund education for all children in SC beyond the current "minimally adequate" standard.

Still waiting for Republican pro-life outrage that any of their money went to fund abortion coverage for RNC employees. For eighteen years. Until this past Thursday.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

No way can I understand why a woman would let someone kill a part of herself, a tiny life growing within her. Life is such a miracle. Of all those who could have lived why are we here? And consider the millions who are not here but who were snuffed out right in their own mother's womb. A former director of Planned Parenthood recently on Huckabee told a tragic story of how she watched on an untrasound a tiny baby fighting for its life as it tried to get away from the probe that eventually killed the baby. The director quit her job at the PP clinic but she will never forget that baby trying to get away from the probe. Imagine. Not even in your mother's womb are you safe from violence.

I agree with Nevaeh. Abortion = murder, in any and all conceiveable cases.

Joe Wilson is pro-life. Jim DeMint is pro-life. I detest Lindsey Graham and can't wait to vote him out of office. I really don't know his stance on abortion, but his positions on numerous other issues are enough to make me want him gone.

Those are the three people who represent me in Washington. Two of the three believe as I do, and Graham might - don't know, don't much care. I will cast my vote against Graham as soon as possible regardless.

As for the rest of the members of Congress, they are not my representatives. The RNC means as little to me as the DNC.

All that matters is our representatives. Everyone has three, and only three. You cannot influence the rest.

I like two of my three representatives in Congress. That's not bad. I can safely say many people don't like any of their representatives.

Both parties suck. A third party would suck more. So we're stuck with what we have, which is a republic, which works just fine for me. Sometimes my representatives just happen to be in the majority and sometimes (like now) they aren't. Sometimes I like our representatives and sometimes we get a Lindsey Graham. Ick. It happens.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

Does that include fetuses PB? Where do you stand? Should we dismiss the issue of whether or not government funds should be used to pay for abortions on the simple premise that Republicans are hypocrites as far as you or others are concerned? What is this to you, just a "gotcha" game? I'm not opposed to elective abortion just because some committee says they are. Everybody in politics lies for the dollar and power.

The topic of this is that, for over a DECADE, republicans, while spouting off about the evils of abortion, have, themselves, an insurance plan that COVERS abortions!

Plain...and...simple.

Your, and anyone else's views on the issue of abortion ITSELF, is not relevant to the topic being discussed. If you wish to discuss the topic of abortion, in and of itself, than create a new blog and go to it.

THIS one deals specifically with those elected republicans, who rant and rave publically about abortion, having known, for quite some time, that their insurance plan covers it.

IF they were so holier-than-thou as their ranting and raving about this particular issue makes them appear to be, then the abortion part of their insurance should NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE.

Get it now?

Again...your personal views on the issue of abortion itself, and anyone else's here, isn't the point being discussed. What's being discussed is the FACT that republicans have had abortion clauses in their insurance plan, a plan that is in part paid for BY US.

This is just another weak attempt of "gotcha".
-Hope you guys are having fun.

As heron pointed out a long time ago, not all Republicans are pro-life, just as not all Democrats are pro-death.
Also, as heron pointed out, the GOP platform approves of abortion in certain circumstances.

Now, if PB (or one of you other lefties) can come up with a GOP member that used her insurance to have an abortion (or multiple abortions) as a form of birth control, then you might have something.
-Good luck.

All that matters is our representatives. Everyone has three, and only three. You cannot influence the rest.

OG, if you contributed to the RNC, perhaps responded to the inflammatory anti-abortion rhetoric that I have received in RNC e-mails, then you are attempting to influence representation from all districts in all states. Again, the point is that on the issue of abortion rights, the Republican National Committee, has spoken out of both sides of its mouth. (Thank you for reinforcing my point, psycho, and also for encouraging volcanoman and others to start their own blogs about aspects of abortion rights which they'd like to discuss.)

And nevaeh, has Huckabee expressed any outrage on this topic? As firmly "pro-life" as he is, I would think he might.

Yes, cobraguy, it is indeed likely that those pure and holy women who work for the RNC have never in eighteen years used their insurance to pay for an abortion that might not fit with the stated Republican platform. Right.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

I see this as one of those bureaucratic blunders that happens in huge organizations. Some committee bought the insurance policy and didn't read the fine print. The suits approved assuming the committee did its job. As soon as it was brought to their attention they adjusted. No big deal. But fodder for their critics.

Like an investment company that focuses on "green" solutions and someone finds that one of the companies has "nongreen" activities. Quick sale to avoid a philosophy embarrassment.

Like the Democratic Party that talks inclusiveness, but are critical of the Blue Dog Democrats that have a different opinion than the leadership. Rather than compromising, the leadership says it will not support them in their district in the next election unless they fall in line. This is inclusiveness?

But we have to accept that both parties are made up of reps and districts that are not in lockstep on every issue. The congress has has the reputation of listening and compromising. That has been the hallmark of our democracy.

Thanks to this article which addresses the fungibility rationale that gave us the Stupak Amendment, I see the error of my ways in saying that RNC health insurance coverage of abortions ended last Thursday. It continues, as do the insurance premiums paid by Focus on the Family to a company that covers abortion services. After all, according to the purists who insisted on the Stupak Amendment, money is fungible. meaning that once dollars are spent, it can't be determined which dollar went for which purpose. That's probably news to good accountants, but it worked to sway skittish pols.

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS -- AND COUNTING.... The debate over financing of abortions -- the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment -- is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: "The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars."

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation's largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers "abortion services." The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC -- whose platform calls abortion "a fundamental assault on innocent human life" -- gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion.

The Republicans' health care package has been in place since 1991 -- thanks, Lee Atwater -- meaning that, by the party's own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage -- "and the RNC did not choose to opt out."

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

..........The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC's policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

.........."Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose," Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. "I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled."

..........Steele has told the committee's director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually "settle" the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let's not lose sight of the original fungibility problem -- the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers. In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna. And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is "settled," then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.

Logical argument. Ya gotta love it.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

Volcanoman, please don't put words in my keyboard. The "money is fungible" argument came from those who advocate the cause of the Stupak Amendment, which I believe is (a) to gum up the works of health care reform and (b) to gain additional yardage against abortion rights beyond the Hyde Amendment.

My lengthy post says that the logic of the "money is fungible" argument requires that every person or organization that pays premiums to an insurance carrier that also covers abortion services is ipso facto paying for abortion services. Therefore, the RNC, no matter what they decided last Thursday, is STILL using donor money to fund abortion coverage and likely abortions. That's if you accept the logic of Bart Stupak.

And yes, the same argument would apply to illegal aliens. If you accept the logic of fungible money, that is. But then you'd have to think that you are probably supporting illegals with nearly every purchase you make and that might make some erupt. :>)

I notice that no Republican donors have expressed outrage yet. Oh well.

"... the fundamental test of a society is how it treats the least powerful among us." --- Edward Moore Kennedy, August 1992

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.